The Straits Times loses the plot!
I know I often belittle The Straits Times, but today I have no choice but to take my hat off to them. They have completely outdone themselves.
No longer are they reporting events in a mechanical, misrepresented way. Oh no. They have moved on to a whole new level.
They have now lost the plot altogether. Quite literally, too.
Alex Au has come up with a new term for it: doughnut reporting. He elaborates on doughtnut reporting in his excellent blog post which you can read here.
Let’s take a look at The Straits Times article, shall we? I have interspersed it with some points.
11 August 2010
Straits TimesNGO rally in KL against S’pore death penalty
KUALA LUMPUR: A group of activists from Malaysian non-governmental organisation Lawyers for Liberty held a protest outside the Singapore High Commission yesterday against the Republic’s death penalty, Malaysian media reported.
In a protest memorandum addressed to the Singapore High Commission, the group of about 10 activists, led by lawyer N. Surendran, requested the abolition of the death penalty and the pardoning of Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, who faces the gallows for drug trafficking, online news site Malaysiakini reported.
Yong, 22, was convicted by the High Court on Nov 14, 2008, of trafficking in 47.27g of heroin. The death penalty is mandatory for trafficking 15g or more of the drug.
The Court of Appeal turned down his appeal in May, and he has till Aug 26 to file a plea for presidential clemency.
Image from TheOnlineCitizen Facebook
Point #1:
Even the headline is misleading. It was hardly a “rally”.
What actually happened was that Mourthi Vasu, father of Vignes Mourthi – who was hung in 2003 under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the mandatory death penalty – accompanied by members of Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) and members of the Civil Rights Committee of Kuala Lumpur and the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, went to the High Commission of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur to hand in a memorandum of protest. Mourthi Vasu was seeking redress for his son, claiming that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the way his son’s case had been handled.
Point #2:
Even TheOnlineCitizen, a blog site receiving no substantial funding run by VOLUNTEERS, has managed to send a team to Kuala Lumpur to photograph, video, interview and report on the case. Seen in this light, it is really quite embarrassing that The Straits Times, Singapore’s only English-language broadsheet run by paid and professional journalists, have been reduced to gleaning their information from the Malaysia media – and not even gleaning it right.
Point #3:
Although the memorandum calls for Singapore to “halt all pending executions in Singapore and commute death sentences to imprisonment”, there is absolutely no mention about Yong Vui Kong. The focus of the protest memorandum is very much on the way Vignes Mourthi’s case had been handled, as well as the arrest of Alan Shadrake.
Is The Straits Times’ decision to drag Yong Vui Kong’s name into the reporting of this event an attempt to misrepresent and confuse the issue at hand?
The memorandum also demanded that the Singapore Government withdraw all charges against Alan Shadrake, the author of Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice In The Dock, for which the British writer faces charges of criminal defamation and contempt of court.
Point #4:
WRONG AGAIN! Shadrake has been charged with contempt of court, but has not been charged with criminal defamation (not yet, anyway – unless The Straits Times has some insider information?)
The activists and the Civil Rights Committee of the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall submitted the memorandum to the High Commission’s first secretary, Mr Walter Chia, yesterday, in which they urged the Singapore Government to commute death sentences to imprisonment, Free Malaysia Today reported.
Mr N. Surendran also said Shadrake’s book had shed new light on the case of Malaysian M. Vignes, who was found guilty of giving 27.65g of heroin to an undercover police officer in September 2001, according to court documents. He was hanged in Changi Prison on Sept 26, 2003.
Malaysia also imposes the death penalty for drug trafficking.
Point #5:
The Straits Times finally mentions the crux of the whole event in KL. However, it is only given a brief mention, with none of the actual concerns raised.
Point #6:
The last line of the article is, frankly speaking, completely unnecessary, and therefore I can only conclude that it’s inclusion is a blatant attempt to manipulate readers, playing upon an old “say people, say yourself” mentality that is both unprofessional and juvenile.
Yes, Malaysia has the death penalty for drug trafficking too. But how does that have anything to do with the event being reported, in which what is being highlighted is the possible MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE in the case of Vignes Mourthi and his subsequent hanging?
Like TOC and Yawning Bread, I reproduce memorandum of protest at the end of my entry for your perusal:
MEMORANDUM OF PROTEST
Wrongful execution of M’sian Vignes Mourthi and malicious prosecution of Alan Shadrake
Vignes Mourthi
1. On 26 September 2003, Vignes Mourthi was hanged in Changi prison for alleged drug trafficking.
2. The key testimony on which he was convicted was the evidence of one Sgt Rajkumar who arrested Vignes.
3. Alan Shadrake in his book ” The Jolly Hangman” reveals the shocking truth about the trial and conviction of Vignes. At the time Sgt Rajkumar gave the sworn testimony in court which convicted Vignes, Rajkumar was under investigation for rape, sodomy and bribery! Subsequently he was convicted of corruption and sent to prison for 15 months. Vignes was hanged by the neck until he died on the testimony of this man.
4. In a breathtakingly malcious act, Singapore police and authorities concealed this crucial fact from Vignes’ lawyer M.Ravi. Vignes went to the gallows bitterly denying to the end that he had ever trafficked in drugs. He was only 21 years old when arrested.
5. The callousness and indifference to human life by the Singapore government and judiciary is shown by the now notorious remarks of Chief Justice Yong Pung How. When asked by lawyer M.Ravi whether the innocent Vignes can be hanged due to merely procedural matters, the Chief Justice replied ” Yes, the answer is yes.”
Alan Shadrake
1. On 19 July 2010, a day after Alan launched his book in Singapore, police arrested him for Criminal Defamation and Contempt of Court.
2. Alan was interrogated by police 8 to 10 hours a day despite a weak heart, and now faces trials which may may send him to prison for years. He remains resolute and has said ” I will not be cowed.” His only crime is revealing the truth to the people of Singapore and the world.
We the undersigned demand that the Singapore government:
a. acknowledges the enormous miscarriage of justice that happened in Vignes’ case;
b. clears the sullied name of Vignes Mourthi and make amends to his suffering family;
c. institute immediate reforms in the Singapore judiciary to ensure Singaporean judges appreciate and respect human life and freedom;
d. take appropriate action according to the Constitution against Chief Justice Yong Pung How ;
e. halt all pending executions in Singapore and commute death sentences to imprisonment;
f. cease immediately the malicious persecution of British author Alan Shadrake.
LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY
Civil Rights Committee KUALA LUMPUR AND SELANGOR CHINESE ASSEMBLY HALL
If there has been a miscarriage of justice, it is The Straits Times’ job as Singapore’s leading newspaper to highlight the issues for the Singaporean public, just as it is the responsibility of the government to prove their innocence. Shutting people up is not a way to retain the “moral mandate” – it merely prompts more whispers and mutterings from the public, further undermining the government. If the government and the judiciary are both innocent and Vignes Mourthi’s case was dealt with in a fair, untarnished way, then they should have nothing to hide and it should be no problem to prove it to the people.
It is the fact that we are not allowed to talk about it, not allowed to read about it, not allowed to know about it, that is sowing so much doubt, fear and fury in the Singaporean public’s mind.
Wow! Where can I buy this book! Thanks for updating us! Keep up your good work!
The book is selling like hot cakes in most Malaysian bookstores, apparently. Also available online from the publisher SIRD (I think) and KiniBooks.
Have you lost the plot?
Point #1: if all that ST reported was extracted from Malaysiakini, perhaps you shld check whether Malaysiakini described it as a “rally”.
Point #2: TOC editor is well-known for his activism against the death penalty, hence it’s not surprising TOC would send its own team there to report on this incident. ST on the other hand is not allowed to pressure the Govt in any way. So why would you expect them to act in the same way as TOC. This is a highly misleading comparison.
Point #3: Again, you should first check if Malaysiakini is the one to link Yong’s case to this protest. If ST is merely reproducing what was reported in the Malaysian media, they will just put it through practically verbatim, same as any other wire stories.
Point #4: As above. Pls check what Malaysiakini said.
Point #5: Your view of the crux of the matter is not necessarily their view.
Point #6: The last line of the article is, in my view, good context. If someone is opposed to death penalty, he should start demanding change in his own country.
In my view, the protest note is an attempt to get publicity and put political pressure on a criminal case, which is highly inappropriate and will never work with the PAP govt.
If one accepts the principles of democracy, which includes separation of the powers of the judiciary and the executive, then a mistake made by the judiciary, in a miscarriage of justice, ought to be redressed in the Courts.
Rather than sending protest notes to politicians and ambassadors, it would have been better for the family to begin an action in the Courts in Singapore.
So I want to ask you, have you lost the plot? In your righteous anger over this issue, have you lost sight of how justice should be obtained?
Protest notes won’t work. Political demands to remove the death penalty are irrelevant if you’re concerned about miscarriage of justice.
Have you lost your plot?
I link here the following:
Malaysiakini’s report: http://lawyersforliberty.org/2010/08/abolish-noose-and-free-shadrake-spore-urged/
A video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF716bznB_w
For Point #3, I will admit that I had overlooked that Malaysiakini had mentioned Yong in their report. I will not hesitate to admit that my criticism of The Straits Times was unfair on that point, since they were quoting Malaysiakini. For that I apologise.
However, I feel that my other points still stand.
Point #1: Malaysiakini did NOT describe it as a rally. If you watch the video that I have linked above, you can see for yourself that it is hardly a rally.
Point #2: Having ST send a reporter to cover the event does NOT equate to “pressuring the government”. The submission of the protest memorandum is an event and a story, and newspapers cover stories. ST’s presence would not have been constituted as “pressuring the government” or any form of activism. After all, many other news outlets were there (as you can also see from the video). Are all these news reporters being activists, just for being there to cover the story?
I’m not expecting ST to report it in the same way as TOC, but it’s a story (come on, someone is pretty much accusing the country of hanging an innocent man!), and a story concerning Singapore, no less. Why shouldn’t ST send a reporter? How would sending a reporter be seen as “pressuring the government”? If they were going to cover the story (as they have), why not send a reporter, instead of putting something together from other people’s reports?
If ST had sent their own reporter, things like Point #3 (dragging Yong’s name into it unnecessarily) would have been avoided, since they would not then have to rely on the reports of Malaysiakini.
Point #4: Malaysiakini did not say that Shadrake had been charged for criminal defamation. And honestly, even if they had, ST should have been able to ascertain the facts and pick up on the error – it’s a big case happening in their own country, surely they would have been following it and aware of what the charges were? If even bloggers know what charge has been laid against Shadrake (after all, it’s even being reported by the international media), surely it wouldn’t be too big an ask to expect ST to be aware as well?
Point #5: I disagree that the crux of the issue is subjective. If you read the protest memorandum, it is very clear to see what the main point is, just from the first few sentences, such as:
“Wrongful execution of M’sian Vignes Mourthi and malicious prosecution of Alan Shadrake” right at the top.
You can also see from the video that what was most discussed was the case of Vignes Mourthi.
I’m not sure that anyone could misinterpret what the priority and main issue is here, unless they were intentionally trying to misunderstand.
Point #6: I agree that Malaysians should also be fighting to abolish the death penalty in their own country, and they are. But as I said in Point #5, if the main issue is the possible miscarriage of justice (which, as I have shown, isn’t exactly subjective, but is ACTUALLY what they were talking about most of the time) then the fact that Malaysia also has the death penalty is not directly relevant.
Vignes Mourthi was hung by Singapore, in the name of all Singaporeans. Therefore I believe it is appropriate for any concerns to be submitted to the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, which is a representative of Singapore in that country. Of course, if he does end up getting a lawyer to fight the case, it would then have to move to the Courts. But as a filing of a protest memorandum to protest what Singapore as a whole has done (when an execution has taken place, it is no longer just the judiciary), I don’t see why it shouldn’t have been handed in to the High Commission.
Sadly, the family have allowed themselves to be used as pawns for a political cause, and you have also thrown yourself into this.
If they were really interested in justice and redress, they would file an action in the High Court to re-examine the evidence in this case, and to even press a charge of presenting false evidence against the said police officer, rather than putting up protest notes bringing up the Shadrake case and even calling for abolition of the death penalty. Is that not obvious?
They were ably assisted by a number of lawyers in their protest note, but instead of filing legal motions seeking to overturn the conviction, seek justice or obtain compensation for miscarriage of justice, they chose to create a media circus with their protest note, is that not correct?
So it it not an attempt to extract maximum publicity for their cause, is that not correct?
Until you and other interested persons realize and accept that the pap govt will never bow to any political pressure, esp from foreigners, nothing will be achieved.
If the family wants justice, they will have to get redress from the courts. They will have to understand that the death penalty is not negotiable, and the more they harp on it, the harder the position of the pap govt will become.
Whatever views they have on the shadrake case, or yong’s case, or on the death penalty in general, they must keep to themselves. Pap will not allow foreign interference in domestic legal cases or political issues.
They should come at this sincerely to overturn a miscarriage of justice, and obtain compensation. The latter is something which, although the State is protected by legal immunity, can be negotiated if a miscarriage of justice is found. I’m sure you remember the case of the guy who was caned more than he was sentenced; the govt paid him compensation quietly.
However, if they come in guns blazing on the Shadrake case and openly challenging the death penalty, they are going to find no quarter given by the pap.
I really wish I could communicate with the family direct, I’d like to ask them if they are interested in justice and compensation, or in scoring political points.
“They will have to understand that the death penalty is not negotiable…”
Really? Perhaps you have not heard of the case of Julia Bohl? The death penalty seemed to be more than negotiable when she was arrested and charged…
And why should there not be foreign voices? After all, we are arresting, charging and wanting to execute foreigners, right? Whether the government would like to bow to foreign pressure is one thing, but the foreigners are well within their rights to voice their concerns.
The Mourthi case and Shadrake’s case have now become connected as it was in Shadrake’s book that the miscarriage of justice allegation was brought out and fleshed out the most. Perhaps it would interest you to read the book, if you haven’t already?
I find it contradictory that you keep talking about how it should be a judicial and not politcal issue, yet also keep going on about how the PAP GOVERNMENT.
“They will have to understand that the death penalty is not negotiable…”
Really? Perhaps you have not heard of the case of Julia Bohl? The death penalty seemed to be more than negotiable when she was arrested and charged…
=> Think you don’t understand…what I meant is this govt will never give up te death penaty, as given in Demand e of the note. Such a demand will simply make the pap govt close ranks. Is that what you want? Or what the family wants?
And why should there not be foreign voices? After all, we are arresting, charging and wanting to execute foreigners, right? Whether the government would like to bow to foreign pressure is one thing, but the foreigners are well within their rights to voice their concerns.
=> I ask you once more, is this a platform for you and foreigners to voice concerns? Or for the family to obtain redress? Foreigners criticize Singapore all the time in their press, and the Pap does it’s best to demand a right of reply (and sometimes to sue their local reps). But is the family interested in redress, or in making political statements and criticisms? What do they really want?
The Mourthi case and Shadrake’s case have now become connected as it was in Shadrake’s book that the miscarriage of justice allegation was brought out and fleshed out the most. Perhaps it would interest you to read the book, if you haven’t already?
=> I might read the book if I’ve time, but with the way they’ve gone about this, I see the family will never get any redress. Not with the kinds of advice they’ve been getting, and the kinds of statements they’ve made.
I feel so sorry for them, that they’ve been wrongly advised, and they’ve been used as pawns by anti-death campaigners. A life lost cannot be restored, but if they went about it the right way, at least they could have a chance of compensation, and perhaps even a retrial to clear his name. With their current course of action, they will get nothing.
“After all, we are arresting, charging and wanting to execute foreigners, right? Whether the government would like to bow to foreign pressure is one thing, but the foreigners are well within their rights to voice their concerns.”
Here’s the most ridiculous part of your post. Surely you understand that the death penalty applies to all, citizens and foreigners alike. What’s the intent of your gross exaggeration and misrepresentation?
“Vignes Mourthi was hung by Singapore, in the name of all Singaporeans. Therefore I believe it is appropriate for any concerns to be submitted to the High Commission of Singapore in Malaysia, which is a representative of Singapore in that country. Of course, if he does end up getting a lawyer to fight the case, it would then have to move to the Courts. But as a filing of a protest memorandum to protest what Singapore as a whole has done (when an execution has taken place, it is no longer just the judiciary), I don’t see why it shouldn’t have been handed in to the High Commission.”
Here is where the hidden motives are partly revealed. You say “IF” he does end up getting a lawyer to fight the case.. As if getting a lawyer to fight against a miscarriage of justice is the last thing the family should do.
And you go on to say that a protest note is appropriate because the execution is done In the name of the country. Again you want to politicize a judicial action. In any criminal case, surely you realize that while penalties are legislated by parliament, administration of justice is by the judiciary. If there is any miscarriage of justice, how can it be a fault of the country as a whole? One can argue that the people supported the death penalty thru their votes for politicians who advocate the death penalty, but if it was meted out incorrectly, how can all of Singapore suddenly be responsible?
I don’t believe that I have grossly exaggerated or misrepresented anything. I merely said that we were “arresting, charging and wanting to execute foreigners” because we were discussing the issue in the context of foreign pressure and foreign concerns. I never said that we weren’t “arresting, charging and wanting to execute” locals as well. Although I don’t see how that makes things any better. The death penalty isn’t right just because we kill everybody.
Yes, the death penalty applies to all. Or rather it should. However, there have been stories of people being let off due to their countries threatening diplomatic and economic reprisals, or because they had the right social connections. As I have already mentioned, Julia Bohl is a well-known case.
I say “if” because I am not privy to knowledge of Mourthi Vasu’s actions before they are made public. All I know is that for now he, with the help of Lawyers for Liberty, has submitted a protest memorandum to the High Commission of Singapore, expressing concern over how his son’s case had been handled, and seeking redress. I personally see nothing wrong with that. Part of the reason why Vignes Mourthi was hung was due to the presumption clauses of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the mandatory death penalty (which removes the power and discretion from the judge). The Misuse of Drugs Act is a piece of legislation drawn up by the government. Therefore, why shouldn’t a protest memorandum be handed to a representative of the government?
What Mourthi Vasu’s next step will be, though, I do not know. Hence the use of the word “if”. Please do not try to over-analyse my words and ascribe hidden motives where there are none.
Since Singapore professes to be a democratic country, the government should be a representation and reflection of the people. Actions undertaken by the government are taken on behalf of the people, in the name of the people. Therefore, although it is not directly our fault, it still reflects on Singapore as a whole.
Or do you believe that a government can do whatever they want, completely separate from the wishes of the people? If that is the case, would the “principles of democracy” not be undermined?
Another aspect of this whole debacle is that there are concerns over the separation of executive and judiciary. After all, the legislation is drawn up by Parliament, and the legislation binds the hands of the judiciary as judges are no longer able to have discretion in sentencing. Furthermore it has been recenly announced that the power of clemency decisions is with the Cabinet, not the President. Therefore, it is no longer possible for it to be so clear cut whether an issue is judicial or political. Hence the submission to the High Commission.
You are blinded by your cause.
1. “…he, with the help of Lawyers for Liberty, has submitted a protest memorandum to the High Commission of Singapore, expressing concern over how his son’s case had been handled, and seeking redress. I personally see nothing wrong with that.”
The memorandum did not merely “express” concern. Read the strongly worded language again.
At the risk of incomplete info because I haven’t read the book, I will say that it makes unfounded accusations against the judiciary in which the authors of the note have clearly concluded that everything in Shadrake’s book is the absolute truth and everything that was done in this case was wrong. While that could be the case, without a full and proper investigation and enquiry, they are at best possibilities. And yet on the basis of this book, the note authors not only want a complete declaration of miscarriage of justice, but also for Singapore to completely stop the death penalty.
I ask you, how reasonable is that?
2. “Part of the reason why Vignes Mourthi was hung was due to the presumption clauses of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the mandatory death penalty (which removes the power and discretion from the judge). The Misuse of Drugs Act is a piece of legislation drawn up by the government. Therefore, why shouldn’t a protest memorandum be handed to a representative of the government?”
I repeat– anyone can protest anything they like. But if you really are interested in reversing a miscarriage of justice, you do not go about this with a protest note and a media circus.
3. “Another aspect of this whole debacle is that there are concerns over the separation of executive and judiciary. After all, the legislation is drawn up by Parliament, and the legislation binds the hands of the judiciary as judges are no longer able to have discretion in sentencing.”
That is technically true but it has nothing to do with miscarriage of justice, which is not about discretion, but about proper procedure, admissibility of evidence and correctness of verdict.
Please do not mix issues.
4. “Furthermore it has been recently announced that the power of clemency decisions is with the Cabinet, not the President. Therefore, it is no longer possible for it to be so clear cut whether an issue is judicial or political. Hence the submission to the High Commission.”
First, if your concern is miscarriage of justice, then it has nothing to do with clemency.
If a finding of guilt has been made by a Court, it’s there you have to see redress. The President or the Cabinet may choose to grant clemency, but clemency doesn’t change a guilty verdict, only a commuting of sentence.
So even if the sentence had been commuted, if the family believes there was a miscarriage of justice, it can and should still pursue a legal action.
Just because clemency is exercisable only upon the advice of the cabinet doesn’t make it a reason for a political protest. The alleged miscarriage of justice came from the judiciary.
Don’t confuse clemency with justice.
Second, please do not mix issues.
I know lots of bloggers find it incredible that it’s the Cabinet which gives the green light for clemency, and not the President. But that’s because they don’t have an understanding of Constitutional Law. So they can’t understand. But I suggest you try to do so, at least the legal perspective even if you vehemently disagree with the moral perspective. Because if you don’t understand this, you’ll be no better than the bloggers out there.
Third, as distasteful as you may find it, clemency does not make sense in most cases. From a democratic standpoint, if the Parliament representing the will of the people have resolved that capital punishment shall be imposed for drug trafficking, how can clemency be given, except in very exceptional cases? That would be going against the will of the people.
What I’m telling you is this– don’t count on clemency. Not because the pap are bloodthirsty by nature, but because their integrity and legitimacy to rule will be questioned if they grant it as a matter of course.
And since you know the PAP will never do anything to weaken their political legitimacy to rule, don’t ever count on clemency from them.
I would urge you to read the book. Even if you do not accept what it says as the truth, it is still a thought-provoking read that brings up certain issues that could do with a better airing in the public arena.
I don’t believe that the protest memorandum takes everything in Shadrake’s book as the truth; they mainly focus on Vignes’ case as covered in the book. The information on Vignes’ case, and on Sgt. Rajkumar’s case, are all a matter of public record on LawNet.com.sg.
As I have said, we shall simply have to wait to see what Mourthi Vasu’s next move will be, before we begin to pass judgement.
I did not write that last paragraph in an attempt to mix issues. It just seemed to be that you were determined that there was a gulf between political and judicial cases, and so I just wrote that last paragraph as an example of how it is not always completely clear cut what is political and what is judicial.
I do understand the legal perspective of the ruling on clemency decisions. However, there are still many lawyers out there who also find it controversial – it’s not just the bloggers. And when even the lawyers don’t all seem to agree, that’s when the issue is still up for debate, and why, despite the ruling of the court and my understanding of the conclusion the judge reached, I still can’t help but feel that the issue hasn’t completely been resolved.
Clemency is a final check and balance, especially in capital punishment cases where the action is final and irreversible.
I am not counting on anything. I know as well as anyone that the President – or the Cabinet during this President’s term – has not granted clemency to anybody. However, as long as there is a hope and a chance, I am not intending to just back down and accept that this is how just things are.
Anyway, to draw the whole thing back full circle, I would just like to mention that the focus of the blog post was of ST’s reporting of the event.
“I did not write that last paragraph in an attempt to mix issues. It just seemed to be that you were determined that there was a gulf between political and judicial cases, and so I just wrote that last paragraph as an example of how it is not always completely clear cut what is political and what is judicial.
I do understand the legal perspective of the ruling on clemency decisions. However, there are still many lawyers out there who also find it controversial – it’s not just the bloggers. And when even the lawyers don’t all seem to agree, that’s when the issue is still up for debate, and why, despite the ruling of the court and my understanding of the conclusion the judge reached, I still can’t help but feel that the issue hasn’t completely been resolved.
Clemency is a final check and balance, especially in capital punishment cases where the action is final and irreversible.
I am not counting on anything. I know as well as anyone that the President – or the Cabinet during this President’s term – has not granted clemency to anybody. However, as long as there is a hope and a chance, I am not intending to just back down and accept that this is how just things are.
Anyway, to draw the whole thing back full circle, I would just like to mention that the focus of the blog post was of ST’s reporting of the event. ”
Maybe it’s not clear to you, but it’s very clear to me what is judicial and what is political. Questioning the death penalty’s existence and legitimacy is political. Questioning evidence, procedure and correctness of findings is judicial.
Ive asked you many times: what do you want to question? What does the family want to question?
Could you please answer this?
You are mistaken if you think any controversial legal issue can ever be “resolved”. 50 years on, even Roe v Wade still stirs unhappiness.
You are also mistaken if you think clemency is a form of check and balance. Clemency is to grant mercy in exceptional situations. The guilt still stands. Only the power to vindicate can be a check and balance.
To come back to the ST reporting, given the restraints on them by the pap, and their lack of interest in death penalty issues, and the highly charged language used in the note, I find the st report to be acceptable. Frankly, they could have just given a brief mention and only report the mfa press briefing when it is held.
“To come back to the ST reporting, given the restraints on them by the pap, and their lack of interest in death penalty issues, and the highly charged language used in the note, I find the st report to be acceptable.”
THIS IS PRECISELY MY PROBLEM WITH ST, and the reason I wrote this blog post.
As the leading – in fact, the only – English-language broadsheet in a country that purports to be a democracy, and as a newspaper that claims to be independent and NOT a government mouthpiece, it is UNACCEPTABLE for them to be governed by restraints from the PAP, or to have a “lack of interest” in death penalty issues, something that is so relevant in Singapore.
If no controversial legal issue can ever be “resolved”, then why should I not continue to question it?
Perhaps it would help make things clearer if I knew more about your background. Are you a lawyer? A law student? A politician, or a would-be politician? It would just help me understand the background behind your statements, as you seem to be very sure of pointing out what you think are my errors. It would help me very much to know if you are making your statements based on professional experience, or if it’s just the Opinion vs Opinion of two regular people.
If you have a problem with ST, you need to criticise ST’s handlers. By your use of words such as “purportedly”, it’s already clear you don’t believe Singapore is a real democracy. So why keep berating ST for not being independent?
To reply to your point, I do not believe that any media should have a strong anti-death penalty view. Indeed, the death penalty has been around more than 30 years, and the majority of the population do not oppose the death penalty.
If you want to know more about me, check for my FB under Lee Wai Leong and read my notes.
I use the word “purportedly” because I am not convinced that Singapore is a real democracy. However, the Singaporean government is constantly claiming that we ARE a democracy, and ST has repeatedly assured the public that they are not a government mouthpiece. Therefore, since they want to present Singapore as a democracy and the press as free, then they should live up to the standards required.
Please do not misunderstand, I never said that I thought the media, or ST, should have an anti-death penalty view. I simply meant that they should be interested enough to actually REPORT on it, REPORT properly and fairly. Many of the articles regarding the death penalty are often hidden in the back pages, unbalanced or just downright misleading. For example, ST bought a report from AFP on a press conference in KL regarding the death penalty and Yong. This was buried in page 17, under the World and Regional News section. The Singapore Law Ministry’s article on the death penalty got a half-page colour spread in which ST simply quoted whatever the Law Ministry said as true, without any independent verification. After that, ST refused to run any reply from M. Ravi or Yong.
I am not asking for ST to become anti-death penalty, but simply to report fairly, like any self-respecting newspaper of a democratic nation should.
Have you checked the mission of the SPH group? If not, you should. Then you’ll understand that unlike media in other countries, there are certain things they don’t do.
Also, you need to understand that SPH’s use of the word “independent” is not necessarily the same as your use of the word “independent”. Hence they don’t have any difficulty in portraying themselves as “independent”.
If you don’t understand the above, you’re going to be disappointed and angry for a long time if you keep expecting things from ST that they cannot possibly fulfill.
Lastly, Siew Khum Hong has done a great piece on the recent High Court ruling. He explains the legal position well. I will do a FB note to explain the political position.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2010/08/misunderstandings-about-singapore.html
As far as I can see, SPH’s mission is to “inform, educate and entertain”. Pretty much the same as the BBC, then.
Since you have such a good understanding of all things, would you please be so kind as to explain to me what SPH’s use of the word “independent” would indicate? What do they mean, when they speak of “independent” media?
I have read Siew Kum Hong’s blog post when he posted it. I understand it fine and I see his point. However, as I mentioned before, there is still a lot of discussion, discontent and disagreement even within the legal profession; there are still a number of lawyers who do not agree with him.
I can’t read your notes, they seem to be locked.
Forgive me, but your philosophy seems to be “just understand that this is the way it is, and give it up”. And I suppose that is where we will ultimately have to agree to disagree.
SPH left out the word “influence”. For good reason. Because the PAP does not believe in the press becoming the Fourth Estate.
“Independent” does not mean critical, as far as PAP is concerned.
You’ll understand my philosophy better thru my notes. My philosophy is to fight the right people, in the right way. Fighting the underlings when they’re not the ones setting policy doesn’t make sense to me.
“Influence” does not need to be in the mission statement for them to be the Fourth Estate, or for them to report fairly and neutrally on issues without being a government mouthpiece. Just look at the BBC. “influence” is not in their mission statement either, but somehow they are still able to function as a watchdog of the government. I’m sorry, but you seem to be grasping at straws.
And all this talk about “the PAP does not believe…” and “…as far as PAP is concerned”. You also say that SPH does not mean the same as I do when they use the word “independent”. But if it is as you say, and they are the way they are because of the PAP, how can they use the word “independent” AT ALL? In what dimension does the word “independent” mean “being shaped and controlled according to what the PAP believes”?
As I have mentioned before, I have no access to your notes.
Hi Kirsten,
I just wanted to say thanks for the insightful analysis of the ST article. Also, I applaud how you’ve managed to stay reasonable throughout your exchange with Wai Leong despite his sweeping accusations against you. Hope you’ll continue doing the good work and provide an alternative media for Singaporeans like us
Hi Red
Thank you for visiting this blog and reading!
I certainly intend to keep on writing about issues that I care about for as long as I can.
My biggest wish and hope for Singapore is for us to have a free media, and that we will also be able to debate and discuss important issues openly in the public sphere. Thus I also have to accept that I am not always going to hear what I like and that I will often encounter people like Wai Leong who have different views, so it would go against my own beliefs and wishes for my country if I were to react in any other way but to engage in reasonable debate!